NAGIREDDY TULASI KATYAYINI v. BATHINA SUJATHA

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in I.A.No.1236 of 2024 in O.S.No.85 of 2020 O.S.No.85 of 2020 pending on the file of The 2 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimunipatnam, Vishakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. P VIVEK The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimunipatnam I.A.No.1236 of 2024 in O.S.No.85 of 2020 dated 13.11.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the above said suit filed for recovery of money.

3. The respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.1236 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 1(3)(B) and Section 151 of CPC read with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, duly praying the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the said petition. The same was opposed by the petitioner/ plaintiff by filing counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the respondent/defendant did not plead about the said documents in the written statement and the same cannot be received at a belated stage. 3

4. After hearing the parties, the Court below, by order dated

13.11.2024, allowed the said application subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter and the grounds of the revision petition contended the Court below failed the aspect respondent/defendant did not plead anything regarding the documents now sought to be received in the written statement. He further contended that the Court below erroneously allowed the said application by observing that the relevancy and admissibility of the documents would be considered at the time of judgment and the same is contrary to law. He further submitted that once the documents are received, the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff would be affected, as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and dismiss I.A.No.1236 of 2024.

7. On the other hand, Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel respondent/defendant submitted that the Court below cannot test the relevancy and admissibility of the documents at the stage of receiving. He further submitted that such objections can be raised at the stage of 4 marking the documents. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly allowed the said application and needs no interference of this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, the defendant has to produce the documents upon which he relies along with the written statement and the documents sought to be produced were not referred to in the written statement, therefore, the same cannot be looked into. However, sub rule (3) of the said provision confers discretion upon the Court to permit the defendant to produce documents at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown. Further, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the Court below is erroneously observed that admissibility and relevancy of documents must be looked into at the time of judgment and by virtue of the said observation, if the documents sought to be produced by the respondent/defendant were taken on record, the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff would be affected.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Para 10 & 16 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 5 K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palaanisamy1, which are extracted hereunder for quick reference:

10. The respondent contended that section 151 cannot be used for re- opening evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition. We however agree that section 151 of the Code cannot be routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses. The scope of section 151 has been explained by this Court in several decisions (See : Padam Sen vs. State of UP-AIR 1961 SC 218; Manoharlal Chopra vs. Seth Hiralal - AIR 1962 SC 527; Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar - AIR 1964 SC 993; Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Kanhay Lal - AIR 1966 SC 1899; Nain Singh vs. Koonwarjee - 1970 (1) SCC 732; The Newabganj Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. vs. Union of India - AIR 1976 SC 1152; Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi - AIR 1977 SC 1348; National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C Parameshwara - 2005 (2) SCC 256; and Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj - 2010 (8) SCC 1). We may summarize them as follows: (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is `right' and undo what is `wrong', that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, section 151 recognizes and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is co-extensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. 1 Civil Appeal Nos.2795 & 2796 of 2011 6 (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the Legislature. (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

16. We may add a word of caution. The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. If the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that the object of the application is merely to protract the proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record, the court may also listen to the recording before granting or rejecting the application. 7

11. No doubt, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is well settled. However, the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is not intended to be exercised routinely or merely for the asking.

12. There is some force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel the respondents the question of relevancy or admissibility of the documents cannot be looked into at the time of receiving the documents. The settled principle is that the Court may receive the documents on record, subject to proof and admissibility, and the objections regarding their admissibility can be considered at appropriate stage when the documents are sought to be marked in evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel respondent relied on judgment in G.Sudhaker Reddy vs. M.Pullaiah2.

13. No doubt the observation made by the trial Court insofar as admissible or inadmissible, relevant or irrelevant aspect at the time of delivering the judgement is erroneous and the Court cannot decide the said aspect at time of marking the document. As held 2 2015 SCC Online Hyd 62 8 R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami,3, there is a clear distinction between receiving a document on record and marking the document as an exhibit in evidence. While considering the said issue, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder case, wherein it was held that objections relating to the admissibility must be taken at the time of marking of the document, and if such objections are not raised at that stage, the party may not be permitted to raise them subsequently at a later stage, including in appeal or revision.

14. In view of the above settled legal position, the Court below is required to consider the objections relating to admissibility at the stage when the documents are sought to be marked in evidence.

15. In the said view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgements referred supra, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The Court below is directed to follow procedure laid down while considering the documents which now sought to be relied by the defendant. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 AIR 2003 SC 4548 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 27th February, 2026 RKS _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI